Congressman Pence Writes...

The American people love a fair fight and so do I, especially where the issues of the day are debated. In a free market, fairness should be determined based upon equality of opportunity, rather than equality of results. Some voices are calling for Congress to enforce their idea of “fairness” on our broadcast airwaves. But our nation should proceed with caution whenever some would achieve their “fairness” by limiting the freedom of others.

The so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is an Orwellian Federal Communications Commission rule that beginning in 1949 required radio and television broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. But there's nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. To avoid administrative costs and hours of paperwork and legal fees, broadcasters opted to offer noncontroversial programming. As a result, talk radio, as we know it today, simply did not exist.

Putting unelected FCC bureaucrats back in charge of rationing free speech would be dangerous to democracy in America. The free marketplace of ideas – not a government bureaucracy – should determine the content of broadcast media. As a former radio talk show host, I know what the reinstatement of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ would mean – effectively muzzling American talk radio.

Recognizing the chilling effect that the regulation was having on broadcast freedom, the FCC began to revoke the Fairness Doctrine in 1985. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.” That statement is just as true today as it was then. Following repeal of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and President Reagan’s veto of attempts to reinstate it, the results have been dramatic.

The lifting of the Fairness Doctrine opened the public airwaves to a free and vigorous discussion of controversial issues that never existed before its repeal. When Rush Limbaugh began his legendary career, there were 125 talk radio stations in America. Today, there are 2,000. While Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and other conservative giants dominate the national syndicated market, many moderate and liberal programs succeed admirably at the local level.

Sadly, some of the most powerful elected Democrats in America have said that Congress should bring back this outright censorship of the American political debate. Should the liberals succeed in their effort to reimpose the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ or anything like it they will inflict great damage on the First Amendment and send talk show hosts—left, right and center—packing. Freedom of speech and of the press are cherished pillars of our society and nowhere would their loss be more keenly felt than on our airwaves.

During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty lest the frank and informative discussions now blossoming on the airwaves of America should one day fall silent.

Together with Congressman Greg Walden, I have authored the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a bill to make permanent the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by taking away the FCC’s power to reinstate it without an act of Congress.
If the Broadcaster Freedom Act is brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, we have every confidence it will pass, because when freedom gets an up-or-down vote in the People’s House, freedom always wins.

Submitted by: Congressman Pence

Fairness Doctrine Prohibited

Today the Senate adopted an amendment to the DC voting rights bill offered by Senator DeMint and other GOP Senators that would prohibit the Federal Communications comm. from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine that was abolished in the late 1980s. The so-called Broadcasters Freedom Act in the form of the DeMint amendment., was supported today by 46 members of the Democratic side of the United States Senate chamber. The vote to support the DeMint amendment was 87 to 11. This action is welcome news for those who fear the reinstatement of the Fairness doctrine in various forms via the FCC. This strong vote should be a indication that if the FCC were to try to impose various versions of a fairness doctrine through programming limitations and the such, that those 46 Senators, both Democratic and Independent, will once again support overturning those such regs if they do in fact take shape later in the Congress.

The 11 Democratic and Independent Senators that did not support the DeMint amendments are: Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND),Dorgan (D-ND),Feinstein (D-CA),Harkin (D-IA),Johnson (D-SD),Kerry (D-MA),Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV),Sanders (I-VT), Whitehouse (D-RI)

Senate Prevents F.D. Revival

From FoxNews...

The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would outlaw the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," an off-the-books policy that once required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment passed by a wide margin of 87-to-11. The South Carolina senator had attached his proposal, called the Broadcaster Freedom Act, to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House.

It's unclear whether the amendment will survive as Congress debates the voting rights bill. But the measure served to effectively put the Senate on record as opposing a revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

However, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin also won approval for an alternate amendment that would order the Federal Communications Commission to encourage radio ownership "diversity."

A DeMint aide said Durbin's measure will "impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door by trying to break up radio ownership."

The aide called the Durbin proposal "an attempt to break up companies like Clear Channel and hurt their syndications and therefore putting many local radio stations out of business that depend on those syndicated shows for revenue."

The measure passed by a vote of 57-to-41.

The media control doctrine is a policy created decades ago but abolished in the late 1980s that required broadcasters to provide opposing views on controversial issues of public importance.

Though President Obama remains opposed to any effort to renew it and the Federal Communications Commission claims it is not in any talks to revive the policy, a few Democrats have voiced strong support for the media control policy in recent weeks. Republicans like DeMint in turn pushed legislation to forestall any move to bring back the doctrine.

"We need to make it a law that the FCC or this Congress cannot implement any aspect of the Fairness Doctrine," DeMint said.

Congress Should Ignore the Fairness Doctrine Distraction

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - http://www.freepress.net/node/48369
Date: February 24, 2009 Contact: Jen Howard, Free Press, (202) 265-1490 x22 or (703) 517-6273

WASHINGTON -- Today, Free Press released The Fairness Doctrine Distraction, a policy brief that explains why Congress should ignore any attempts to revive the legislative debate over the long-defunct broadcasting regulation.

The controversy over the Fairness Doctrine heated up recently after a handful of Democratic legislators publicly entertained its return, though no legislation to bring it back has been introduced in Congress. Despite President Barack Obama's statement last week reaffirming his longstanding opposition to the Doctrine, bills have been introduced by Republicans in both the House and Senate to prohibit the FCC from reinstating the regulation.

The Fairness Doctrine Distraction argues that the public interest is not served by revisiting an outdated policy that was taken off the books in 1987. The policy brief notes that it is untenable for the government to regulate political speech. It also points out that the Fairness Doctrine is unlikely to produce viewpoint diversity and would likely be overturned in court. Finally, the brief dispels assertions falsely equating the Fairness Doctrine with other media reform policies such as ownership limits, localism and Net Neutrality that have nothing to do with content regulation.

"There is so much that can be done with broad bipartisan support to promote free speech and diverse viewpoints in our media marketplace," said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press.

"We encourage Congress and the administration to ignore the Fairness Doctrine distraction and pursue media reform policies that matter."

Read The Fairness Doctrine Distraction: http://www.freepress.net/files/fp-FairnessDoctrine.pdf

Rush Limbaugh Says "Barack Obama Should Not Impose Fairness Doctrine on Talk Radio"

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

Read more here.

Obama's Silver Lining

For all the criticism of the early Administration, President Obama should be commended on one thing, his opposition to the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. If only his own party would listen to him as Democratic leaders and figures have supported reinstatement of the FD. The list so far includes: Speaker Pelosi, Sen. Schumer, Sen. Stabenow, Sen. Harkin, and former President Clinton.

Fairness and Localism

O'Reilly and Beck clip on the Fairness Doctrine and Localism:

Free Speech under Attack in London…

Dutch member of Parliament and EU Citizen Geert Wilders was denied entry into Great Britain today upon his arrival at Heathrow airport. Mr. Wilders was invited to attend a showing of his 17-minute film, Fitna, at the House of Lords by a member of the British Parliament.

The film describes how verses in the Koran are used to incite violence by extremist followers of Islam.

A Home Office representative, Lord West defended the arrest and expulsion, stating: “Under European law a member state of the European Economic Area may refuse entry to a national of another EEA state if they constitute a threat to public policy, public security or public health.”

The Times of London has the complete news story.

The Times also published an editorial supporting Mr. Wilders today.

Submitted by ASO member: Jeter

Senator Harkin: 'We need the Fairness Doctrine back'

Just this morning, I reported that Sen. Debbie Stabenow has backed off on the idea of holding hearings for radio accountability, something she discussed last week with liberal radio host Bill Press (leading to an uproar on conservative talk radio over the Fairness Doctrine). Well today, Sen. Tom Harkin appeared on Press's show and came out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine.

BILL PRESS: And, thanks for your leadership, thanks for your good work, it's great to have you there Senator. And, great to have you on the show. Appreciate it.

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Well, anytime – just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said 'there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.'

BILL PRESS: Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that's all. You know, we're not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that's why we need the fair -- that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

BILL PRESS: We'll work on that together. Hey, thanks, Senator! Always good to talk to you.

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Thanks Bill, see you, bye.

Click here to read more and to watch the video.

Senator Stabenow Interviewed by Bill Press

Sen. Stabenow wants hearings on radio 'accountability'; talks fairness doctrine
This morning, radio host Bill Press brought up the recent closing of liberal station Obama 1260 when speaking with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and talked about whether there needs to be a balance to right-wing talk on the radio dial.

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?SENATOR

DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the fairness doctrine, conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there's a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.

Think Long

"Think Long" urged Secretary George Schulz in a recent WSJ column http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327859990131639.html.

He's right. America needs to think long - and act long - on every serious challenge we're facing. That's a lot of challenges. If you count this author's checkbook. that's about a zillion (whoops, forgot to carry the one), a gazillion serious challenges.

The same is true of the Fairness Doctrine. We need to think long about what could happen if we stifle speech, or at least give it a bad sniffle. The last thing free speech needs right now is a hacking cough.

After all, thinking long demands speaking clearly. It demands that every idea for making it through this present crisis is spoken, cleanly and perhaps even loudly. It demands that solutions can be suggested, laughed at, improved and perhaps even used.

There’s no need to squelch the megaphones that are already out there (and good luck turning off that golden mike: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/obama_vs_limbau.html) but it is essential that even whispers have the chance to be heard.

So by all means, let’s think long. Let’s speak clearly too, and let all the voices be heard. And with time, and a whole lot of luck, we’ll somehow find the way through our zillion – forgot to add the one again – gazillion challenges.

Submitted by ASO member: The Cappuccino Conservative

The rest of the sentence

It's hard to believe that our right to free speech is being threatened in this country, isn't it? In fact, part of what worries me is that we have this false sense of security about that right since every politician of every stripe tends to say that they believe in free speech and they want to defend it. They say what we want (and darned well expect) to hear so we have every reason to believe our right to free speech is totally safe.

But it's as if the politicians who support the Fairness Doctrine forgot to finish the sentence. Because their support for this freedom-crushing policy really means "I believe in free speech - unless I disagree with that speech or feel it threatens my ability to get re-elected." I guess they know that voters are smart enough to know the unspoken end of that sentence would not go over so well, so they keep it to themselves. I think that’s too bad. I hope that people who express their full thoughts keep speaking up about the Fairness Doctrine. How better to save free speech than with free speech?!

Submitted by ASO member Jean Card

Wait a minute… what about our ‘right to privacy’?

Americans love the phrase “right to privacy.” We like our privacy, and rightly so. It’s an important part of being free – free from scrutiny, judging and unwanted pressure on our own decisions.

So I hope people find out that the misleadingly-named “Employee Free Choice Act” would actually strip workers of their privacy. Frankly, I have no idea what they mean by “free choice.” Because this legislation would take away workers’ rights to a private ballot – talk about something that is sacred to Americans!

In this country, from the time we are children voting for class president, we value the fact that our vote is SECRET. Our business and no one else’s. That privacy frees us to make the choice we want, without fear of consequence if our vote, ahem, displeases someone else.

Imagine you are a worker at a company where some of your co-workers are talking of unionizing. They feel strongly about it and are pressuring you to vote for the union. You don’t feel a union is necessary and, frankly, you’d rather not have to pay union dues for something you don’t think you need.

Now imagine that your vote on the issue will be out-in-the-open. Fully disclosed. You literally will not be able to keep your opinion to yourself… private. Talk about a violation of a fundamental American right!

It’s like asking for a “show of hands” in front of the bully running for class president.

Submitted by ASO member Jean Card

Cyber-Bullying: Free Speech?

America, SpeakOn This...

When does the public good of protecting individuals from harassment outweigh our constitutional right of free speech?

Everyone understands the basics of free speech: you can say what you want, with a few exceptions. You cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theatre or “BOMB” at a school or in an airport.

Cyber-bullying is when one person is targeted by another, for on-line or cell phone threats, harassment or humiliation. I assume things said are stronger than ‘hey four-eyes,’ or ‘skinny’ or the like, as we all were familiar with growing up. It’s a judgment call, which is exactly the problem – whose judgment?

After the suicide deaths of two 13-year-olds from this type of harassment, regulation of cyber-bullying became a civic concern, but the most common remedy - placing the responsibility on school districts - is wrong.

At least 13 states have enacted laws having school districts shoulder the burden of policing cyber-bullying, and California is the latest to tackle the problem. All have, because of the age of people involved, usually 13 to 15 year olds, saddled the schools with the responsibility of regulating this behavior. That is a problem.

School districts have no authority to regulate behavior outside of school, where cyber-bullying most often occurs. Schools also have no authority over people who are not a member of that school’s community. In at least one of the cases giving rise to this legislation the bully was an adult and would not have been covered by the legislative remedy. It’s ineffective, wrong, and in and of itself an infringement of First Amendment free speech rights.

Despite good intentions, rules are inconsistent from district to district, educators are sometimes surprisingly uneducated about the technology used by the students, and they have no resources or authority to regulate behavior off school property.

America, SpeakOn this, and tell us what you think….where does free speech end?

Submitted by ASO member Mark Emmert.

Dying For Freedom Of Speech

A member of the AmericaSpeakOn community wrote us this week to let us know about the life and death of Lasantha Wickrematungo.

Lasantha Wickrematunge, who served as Editor of The Sunday Leader paper in Sri Lanka and wrote about current issues and corruption in Sri Lanka's government, was assassinated earlier this month by gunmen in Colombo, his country's capital.

Before he was killed, Mr. Wickrematunge wrote a last editorial for his paper. Here are the first few paragraphs of the piece:

No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.

I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be The Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in Sri Lanka during that time, and it does not need me to tell you that the greater part of that change has been for the worse. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower.

Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries. Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.

But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.

Mr. Wickrematunge's entire editorial is incredibly heartbreaking, poignant and uplifting all at once.

And absolutely worth a full read.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to Mr. Wickrematunge's family and friends.

"What Freedom Means To Me"

AmericaSpeakOn has heard from people from around our country who are interested in creating homemade videos answering the question, "What Freedom Means To Me".

In the next few weeks, as ASO gets up and running, we're going to be doing much more around this idea - including holding a "Best Grassroots Video" contest of sorts.

Until then, we thought it would be fun to look back at three videos that went viral during the 2008 campaign.

So get ready to dust of your camcorders and let your creative juices flow (and don't forget to leave comments linking to videos you would like to share with the ASO community)!

Editor Of Human Events Wants AG Designate Eric Holder To Answer Questions About Fairness Doctrine

Jed Babbin, the editor of the popular conservative website HumanEvents.com, wants Eric Holder, Barack Obama's pick for Attorney General, to answer questions about the Fairness Doctrine.

Posting today, Mr. Babbin wrote this:

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Before Holder’s nomination is voted on by the committee, he should answer searching inquiries that may reveal his unfitness for that post.

Going through Holder’s record is a huge task, but some of his speeches, legal writings and other actions -- as investigated by a House committee almost seven years ago -- quickly reveal some of the most important questions. Holder should be required to answer the following questions in the very first hearing.

[snip]

The Fairness Doctrine: In a June 2004 speech -- again to an American Constitution Society group -- Holder spoke about the difficulties of convincing people to support the liberal agenda. He said:

“In the short term, this will not be an easy task. With the mainstream media cowered (sic) by conservative critics, and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner, and you know what I mean there, the means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible.”

Question for Holder: The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is a relic of the 1940s. It allowed federal bureaucrats to regulate the content of radio broadcasts on an ideological basis to ensure “balance.” President Reagan did away with it in 1987. Do you think a law or regulation that re-imposed the “Fairness Doctrine” would be Constitutional today?

Babbin's questions for Mr. Holder make good sense to us.

Obama Selects Genachowski to Lead F.C.C.

The New York Times reported yesterday that President-elect Barack Obama has selected Julius Genachowski to lead the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC will play a key role in deciding and implementing upcoming freedom of speech issues, and it will be interesting to hear what Mr. Genachowski has to say on issues like the Fairness Doctrine.